Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Groundwater Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate amends TINA bill to add volumetric caps, metering and 10-year review
Summary
Lawmakers discussed Senate changes to House Bill 25-70 that would create temporary non-expansion areas (TINA), cap irrigation pumping at 5 acre-feet per acre for certain wells, add metering and reporting requirements, and require a hydrologic analysis after 10 years before the director may continue a TINA.
Madam Chair and members discussed House Bill 25-70, which as passed by the House would establish a process for designating a temporary non-expansion area (TINA) outside active management areas. The Senate amendment discussed in caucus would: cap groundwater pumping for irrigation at 5 acre-feet per acre per year for certain wells; add well metering and reporting requirements; and require the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to conduct a hydrologic analysis after the first 10 years, at which point the director may continue or allow the TINA to lapse.
Vicente (legislative staff) explained the Senate changes and the new reporting and metering requirements. Representative Stall Hamilton pressed staff on how a TINA differs from prior INA-like proposals and asked whether the bill’s temporary nature would accomplish conservation goals, saying, “Athena really is a big hullabaloo about nothing, right? ... I can appreciate a temporary pause, but ... I think we need to be aggressive, a little more aggressive in our conservation with groundwater pumping.”
Representative Pete Contreras asked how boundaries would be drawn and who would vote on them; Vicente replied that once statutory prerequisites are met, voters would petition DWR, which would coordinate with the county recorder to draw a map that must coincide with a basin or subbasin. Staff noted that eligibility depends on meeting prerequisites in statute and that metering and reporting requirements vary by well type and pumped volume.
The caucus exchange documented lingering skepticism from members about whether the temporary caps and reporting requirements will achieve meaningful conservation, and members requested further detail on implementation mechanics and enforcement before taking a final position.
The discussion was recorded during the caucus presentation of bills and public Q&A; no motion or formal caucus action on the bill was taken during the meeting.
